THE GOLDMINE OF LEVI-STRAUSS:

A LEGACY OF FOOL'S GOLD

by

Hugh R. Whinfrey

This paper will provide a short critique of the application of Levi-Strauss's method to folk tales. The motivation lies in finding an understanding of the limitations of an interpretation conducted in this manner.

The form of his method will be idealized here to the simple paradigmatic description of the tensions and resolutions of the plot in terms of the culture's sociological norms for human behavior. This obviates the requirement that a tension and corresponding resolution must exist in the plot simply in order to perform the analysis in the first place. To paraphrase Vladimir Propp's definition of a 'tale' in the general sense: it is a development proceeding from a situation, of either villainy or lack, through intermediary functions to a denouement.¹ Hence a folk tale possesses a form amenable to the application of the method.

The analyst must first identify the situations in the tale which actually have a denouement. One cannot use Levi-Strauss's method to critique a situation without a denouement, since the 'message' which is the goal of the procedure is derived from the movement between tension and resolution. Any 'messages' in a tale not actively participating in the tension and resolution may not be obviated by the method. For example a folk tale that has a consistently misogynist viewpoint will generally not betray this 'message' under this scheme of analysis unless it is an active component in the plot.

While this identification process does require some subjectivity, i.e. it is theoretically conceivable that different analysts from radically different cultural backgrounds may differ in their conceptions of villainy/lack and denouement, as a practical matter this is really a purely formal issue and by recourse to Vladimir Propp's morphology one can find a reasonably consistent criteria with which to judge the execution of this step.

The next step, where the sociological components of the tension and denouement must be determined, is a matter of a fair degree of subjectivity. Which factors are selected and which are left out effects the nature of the conclusion. For example, an initially poor and unsatisfied hero who becomes rich and happy at the conclusion of the tale can be analyzed into a resultant positive 'message' about the capitalist system. While such a conclusion is a product of the methodology, one needs to interpret the result rather than unquestioningly accept it to be a significant 'message' of the tale. The point here is that at this step the method is vulnerable to the ingenuities of the analyst.

The last step is where movement between the differing sociological conditions is deduced from the 'before' and 'after' diagrams and a 'message' is attached to the movement. The 'message' itself is again vulnerable to the ingenuities of the analyst. For example, interpreting the change in the status of Disney's Snow White as a statement about who the good and bad guys were in the Cold War can be slipped in at this level. Even the usual 'message' from Cinderella that 'success follows from being good inside' could be changed to read 'success follows from having a wicked stepmother' without violating the rules of the procedure. The point is that the selection of the causal agent is absolutely at the discretion of the analyst, and not uniquely dictated by the rules of the game.

Taking the foregoing to it's full logical extension, there seem to be actually four classes of items that could turn up as 'messages'. First, those which are conscious elements of the plot. Second, those which are subconscious elements of the plot. Third, those which are the conscious biases of the analyst. And fourth, those which are subconscious biases of the analyst. The method seems, in short, useful for creating explanations for use in support of a wide range of interpretations for any particular tale.

The question of interpretation of the resultant 'messages' is in fact the crux of the matter. What is very important to bear in mind here is that Levi-Strauss began with the general proposition "that there must be a kind of universal inbuilt logic of a nonrational kind which is shared by all humanity and which is made manifest in primitive mythology"². The point is that he was interested in the subconscious elements of the myth, and his methodology was designed to aid in the discovery of these mythological elements. We therefore tend to be gullible when we are presented with 'messages' from this method that purport to say something about a tale on a subconscious level, precisely because they have the form we expect a successful application of it to take.

One of the fundamental tenets in the construction of Levi-Strauss's paradigmatic methodology was that "Myth is not just fairy tale; it contains a message."³ The extension of his method to both oral and literary folk tales seems to be contradictory to a basic premise of the method. He clearly differentiates between myth and fairy tale, which precludes invoking the 'broken-down-myth' theory to rescue the situation.

The reason for the distinction may be rooted in Levi-Strauss's "thesis that the function of mythology is to exhibit publicly, though in disguise, ordinarily unconscious paradoxes [of the human mind]."⁴ His method certainly seems designed to expose these metaphysical paradoxes via the role played by the binary opposites in the diagrams. That he feels an extension to the fairy tale is inappropriate, can be seen in the aforementioned problem at the interpretive stage where the analyst can bring in any desired viewpoint and remain within the rules of the game. What Levi-Strauss is doing here with this thesis about the function of myths is restricting the viewpoints one can bring in so narrowly that only one can exist - his. This certainly makes the application of the method give unambiguous results in the mechanical manner required of a procedure that purports to have scientific validity.

One could in fact make the same 'scientific procedure' claim for any viewpoint whatsoever simply by denying by fiat the validity of the method to all other viewpoints. In my opinion, Levi-Strauss is all wet on this point.

In summary, this method is a good vehicle for producing explanations serving a variety of sociological theses about folk tales, does not necessarily catch everything that is sociologically significant, and absolutely requires other explanations to accompany it, as it is not credible on its own.

Seattle, March 1994.

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY